Case law

Snyder v. Curran Township

281 Ill. App. 3d 56 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 5, 1996

defendant consistently denied that it had.” •2 Because section 2 — 1108 of the Code is ambiguous regarding the specific requirements of a proper special interrogatory, and because decisions interpreting that section do not clearly … Section 11 — 304, by mandating compliance with the Illinois Manual, establishes defendant’s duty of reasonable care.

People v. Forthenberry

2024 IL App (5th) 231002 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 5, 2024

The defendant argued that he only returned fire after being fired upon and that there is video from which the defendant cannot be identified that establishes the defendant’s version of events. … As a reviewing court, we are entitled to have the issues clearly defined, pertinent authority cited, and a cohesive legal argument presented. Walters v. Rodriguez, 2011 IL App (1st) 103488, ¶ 5.

Wheaton College v. Department of Revenue

155 Ill. App. 3d 945 · Appellate Court of Illinois · May 27, 1987

The party claiming the exemption has the burden to show that it clearly falls within the terms of the exemption statute. (MacMurray College v. … Plaintiff has failed to establish clearly that it falls within the terms of section 19.1. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court upholding defendant’s denial of an exemption is affirmed. Affirmed.

Byrd v. Hamer

408 Ill. App. 3d 467 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 28, 2011

Illinois State Board of Elections, 232 Ill. 2d 231, 243-44 (2009) (“An agency’s application of a rule of law to established facts is a mixed question of law and fact and will not be reversed unless it is deemed ‘clearly … “The party challenging a statute carries the burden of rebutting that presumption and ‘clearly establishing’ its unconstitutionality.” Id. (quoting Russell v.

People v. Allison

236 Ill. App. 3d 175 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 29, 1992

Further, other than the unanswered question, there was no limitation on defense counsel’s opportunity to establish the witness’ bias. … “It is well established that questions concerning the admission of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and that its decision should not be reversed unless such discretion has been clearly abused.

People v. Lovitz

101 Ill. App. 3d 704 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 19, 1981

George Nonte, a qualified firearms expert, testified for the defense as to the operation of the gun. … Giampietro’s supporting affidavit, however, and it clearly raised an issue which must be explored in an evidentiary hearing.

Cianci v. Pettibone Corp.

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 31, 1998

App. 3d 662, 669 (1995) (statements made in reports to worker's compensation insurers protected by qualified privilege because insurers "clearly have an interest in determining the validity of worker's compensation claims … Nowosad also argues that the circuit court erred in ruling that Hall's statements enjoyed a qualified privilege.

Bowne v. Donnelly

2025 IL App (3d) 230073-U · Appellate Court of Illinois · Aug 11, 2025

¶ 26 The critical inquiry in a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 is whether the allegations of the complaint, construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to establish … ¶ 31 Towne’s claim of malicious prosecution was also dismissed for failing to allege sufficient facts to establish the State lacked probable cause to charge him.

Pochie v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 25, 1997

qualified, legal and registered voter at that address." … We further disagree with petitioner's argument that the petition and the records of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners clearly indicate that Pochie does have standing.

Brumley v. Federal Barge Lines, Inc.

78 Ill. App. 3d 799 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 14, 1979

In addition, we note that Captain Zimmer merely testified that a well-qualified river pilot could continue to find work beyond his 65th birthday. … The court concluded: “In our view the likelihood of misuse by the jury clearly outweighs the value of this evidence.

People v. Matthews

299 Ill. App. 3d 914 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 26, 1998

The prosecution in this case chose to use evidence of the defendant’s membership in the Blackstones street gang to establish motive. … Clearly the jury chose to rely on witness testimony and other circumstantial evidence to convict defendant. Defendant also challenges Royal’s testimony as “unreliable and incredible.”

Konicki v. Village of Hinsdale

100 Ill. App. 3d 560 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Sep 30, 1981

And, as neither party has raised an issue of whether the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. … The cases upon which Konicki relies are clearly distinguishable in that they involved the creation of defective conditions on land with respect to the direction and management of vehicular traffic.

Illinois Beta House Fund Corporation v. Illinois Department of Revenue

Appellate Court of Illinois · Apr 25, 2008

The clearly erroneous standard requires us to give some deference to the agency’s expertise and experience with the statute it is charged with administering. Rogy’s, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 770. … In an attempt to establish that the fraternity is “assist[ing] the university’s mission,” it argues “the University actively pursues links with and supervises the fraternities on campus, including the [Illinois Beta Chapter

Vacala v. Village of La Grange Park

260 Ill. App. 3d 599 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 31, 1994

The Village first argues that pursuant to the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1—101 et seq. (West 1992)) it did not owe Vacala a duty of care. … Next, the Village argues that the jury verdict cannot stand because the evidence clearly shows that the conduct of Mills was the sole cause of the accident.

People v. Krone

98 Ill. App. 3d 619 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 28, 1981

This goes to the weight to be given the inference of guilt and is clearly a matter for the trier of fact to determine. … Controlling here is the rule that the details of a police radio broadcast are admissible to establish that the officer went to the area of the crime because of the broadcast, but not to prove the truth of the statements contained

Riordan v. Department of Registration & Education

205 Ill. App. 3d 344 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 17, 1990

Maher was qualified to testify. Nor would such a contention be tenable, given the standards of review applicable to the circuit court and this court in administrative review cases. … In this cause the Board clearly chose to accept Dr. Maher’s testimony and rejected the limited testimony of Dr. Riordan and Dr. Oses.

Heiden v. DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc.

396 Ill. App. 3d 135 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 9, 2009

of a cause of action also must qualify as a postjudgment motion. … Moreover, the “reconsideration” sought was not clearly identical to the “clarification” sought. Rather, the “reconsideration” and “clarification” were pleaded alternatively in the prayer for relief.

Perkins v. Dole

240 Ill. App. 20 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 16, 1926

He sought to recover back said sum, together with reasonable attorney’s fees, because, as alleged in his declaration in substance, the stock had not been qualified for sale in Hlinois. … The evidence clearly shows that the Company, a Delaware corporation, was the “issuer” of the stock which it sold to plaintiff and that said sales to plaintiff were made in Illinois.

Malec v. City of Belleville, Illinois

407 Ill. App. 3d 610 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 7, 2011

Whether the parcel here qualifies as “vacant land” under the TIF Act does not depend on how the land was controlled. This section clearly and plainly provides that “vacant land” means a parcel that has been subdivided. … The land clearly meets the criteria under the TIF Act to be considered subdivided and therefore vacant.

People v. Kastman

Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 28, 2002

To this end, " ' "[w]here the spirit and intent of the General Assembly in adopting an act are clearly expressed and its objects and purposes are clearly set forth, courts are not bound by the literal language of a particular … Inasmuch as respondent is the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute, he bears the burden of clearly establishing the constitutional violation. See People v.